“Reaffirming Armstrong”
Montana’s Supreme Court Confirms Viability-Based Abortion Protection
and Strict-Scrutiny Review Under the State Privacy Clause

1. Introduction

On 9 June 2025 the Supreme Court of Montana decided Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State, 2025 MT 120. The State appealed a Yellowstone County order permanently enjoining three 2021 statutes—HB 136 (20-week ban), HB 140 (mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound offer) and HB 171 (restrictions on medication abortion). In a 5-2 opinion by Justice Beth Baker the Court held all three laws unconstitutional, reaffirming its landmark 1999 decision Armstrong v. State.

Key parties were:

• Appellees: Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman, on behalf of themselves and their patients;
• Appellant: the State of Montana, represented by Attorney-General Austin Knudsen;
• Amici: Several medical, civil-rights, and constitutional scholars, including surviving delegates of the 1972 Constitutional Convention.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court answered three certified questions:

1. Whether HB 136’s 20-week ban violates the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of individual privacy or equal protection. Held: Yes.
2. Whether HB 171’s medication-abortion limits and compelled informed-consent language violate the rights of privacy and free speech. Held: Yes.
3. Whether HB 140’s compulsory ultrasound-offer statute infringes privacy. Held: Yes.

Applying strict scrutiny to each enactment, the Court concluded (a) each law intruded on the fundamental right to pre-viability abortion embedded in Article II §10 (privacy) as interpreted in Armstrong; (b) the State failed to demonstrate a “medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk” justifying the intrusion; (c) even assuming a compelling interest, each statute was not narrowly tailored. It therefore affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction and, with respect to HB 171, found its unconstitutional provisions non-severable notwithstanding a severability clause, striking the Act in toto.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and their Influence

• Armstrong v. State, 296 Mont. 361 (1999)
  The linchpin precedent holding Montana’s explicit privacy clause protects “personal and procreative autonomy,” including the right to a pre-viability abortion. Armstrong adopted strict scrutiny and required the State to prove a law addresses an actual, medically accepted health risk. The 2025 Court treated Armstrong as binding, rejected calls to overrule or “narrow” it, and emphasized its independence from federal jurisprudence.
• Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 (1997)
  Established that Montana’s enumerated right of privacy is fundamental and broader than the implied federal privacy right. Used here to bolster a reading that Dobbs’s contraction of federal abortion rights is irrelevant in Montana.
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022)
  Overruled Roe/Casey under the federal Constitution. The State argued Dobbs undermined Armstrong. The Court distinguished Dobbs as a Fourteenth-Amendment ruling, whereas Montana’s privacy right is textual and therefore unaffected.
• Other Montana cases reinforcing strict scrutiny and informational/decisional privacy, including Weems (2023), Planned Parenthood of MT v. State (2024 MT 178, funding case), Mont. Democratic Party v. Jacobsen (2024) and a line of search-and-seizure precedents.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Framework: Rights-analysis proceeded in three steps—(1) Does the law infringe a fundamental right? (2) Has the State proven a compelling interest predicated on a bona fide health risk? (3) Is the law narrowly tailored? Failure at any step is fatal.
2. HB 136 (20-Week Ban)
   • Infringement: Categorically bars some pre-viability abortions.
   • Compelling interest: State cited fetal pain and maternal health. Court found medical consensus lacking on pain before 24 weeks and noted abortion’s safety profile.
   • Narrow tailoring: A hard 20-week line was under- and over-inclusive (if pain occurs at 12 weeks or 24 weeks, a 20-week rule is arbitrary).
   • Equal Protection: The statute created two classes of similarly situated pregnant Montanans (pre- and post-20-weeks) based solely on exercise of a fundamental right—fails strict scrutiny.
3. HB 171 (Medication-Abortion Act)
   • Telehealth ban & multiple visits: Unduly delay care, heighten cost and risk, and are unsupported by evidence of increased complications.
   • 24-hour wait & compelled consent form: The form forced providers to convey controversial “abortion-reversal” claims the medical community rejects; thus, impermissible viewpoint-based compelled speech violating Article II §7.
   • Credential/reporting requirements: Overbroad, chilled access, and risked disclosure of identifiable data, infringing informational privacy.
4. HB 140 (Ultrasound Offer)
   • Although facially “optional,” State-mandated offer intruded into counseling, substituting legislative judgment for clinical discretion.
   • No showing that universal offers reduce ectopic-pregnancy risk or otherwise protect health, hence fails strict scrutiny.

C. Impact

• State-Constitution Sovereignty – The opinion cements Montana’s privacy clause as an independent wellspring of rights, immune from federal contractions post-Dobbs.
• Strict Scrutiny Re-entrenched – Any abortion regulation pre-viability must now meet the Armstrong/Planned-Parenthood trilogy: compelling health justification + least-restrictive means.
• Legislative Drafting – The Court hints that narrower, evidence-driven regulations (e.g., targeted clinic-safety rules supported by data) could survive. Blanket week-specific bans or ideologically laden consent forms will not.
• CI-128 Interaction – The opinion notes passage of 2024 CI-128 creating an explicit reproductive-autonomy amendment effective 1 July 2025. The decision arrives first, but harmonizes with the amendment, likely rendering future privacy litigation even more plaintiff-friendly.
• Free-Speech Dimension Expanded – By striking compelled “abortion-reversal” speech the Court broadens Article II §7 doctrine on content/viewpoint discrimination in medical contexts.
• Regional Ripple-Effect – Neighboring states without textual privacy clauses may cite the ruling as comparative authority when interpreting heightened privacy provisions (e.g., Alaska).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Viability – The developmental point when a fetus could survive outside the womb, with or without medical aid; medically assessed case-by-case. Court refuses to peg it to a fixed week.
• Strict Scrutiny – Highest constitutional review: the State must prove (1) a compelling interest; (2) the law is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
• Medically Acknowledged, Bona Fide Health Risk – A danger recognized by the mainstream medical community through peer-reviewed evidence. Legislative “assumptions” or minority expert views are insufficient.
• Viewpoint Discrimination – Government favoring one side of a debate (e.g., “abortion reversal works”) over another inside compelled speech. Presumptively invalid.

5. Conclusion

Planned Parenthood v. State (2025) is a full-throated reaffirmation of Armstrong and of Montana’s tradition of expansive individual privacy. By striking three recent legislative efforts, the Court signals that post-Dobbs retrenchment elsewhere will not shrink rights safeguarded by Montana’s explicit privacy clause. Legislators must now anchor any abortion regulation in demonstrable medical risk and draft with surgical precision. Coupled with the forthcoming constitutional amendment (CI-128), the decision positions Montana among the most protective jurisdictions for reproductive autonomy and sets a robust doctrinal template of strict scrutiny plus medical-consensus evidence that other state courts may emulate.